Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We already have the, before and after, metrics from last generation.It does to me. The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not what they can and should do for their self.Regulating prices is a function delegated to our federal Congress. Subsidies for agriculture and intellectual property don't seem to be bad.How about prices? Should the government regulate prices to promote the general welfare of the people to fulfill the social contract?Only if we have real times of war and not fake times of war and therefore, optional times of war as indicated by the necessity of real times of war tax rates.Would you like the government to regulate profits as part of the social contract for the general welfare of the people?begging the question is just fallacy.
Minimum wages are already fixed as a Standard in our Republic. Anything more than just right wing fantasy?
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
In 1870, almost 50 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture.[16] As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States
And if that does not provide for the general welfare of all people, should the government step in and assume control?So the government should provide jobs for everyone. Got it. How many cars should the government provide?.
Should the government redistribute wealth to promote the general welfare of the people?
managing a sound economy is the gov'ts obligation to the public, all economic modelling to be successful must achieve full employment.
The private sector is supposed to provide jobs for their capital gains preference.
So you believe that during times of war it would be necessary for the government to establish wages? You do realize that in those times labor shortages would be the issue, right?Only if we need the surety of socialism to bailout capitalism, like during real and not fake, times of war.You still didn't answer that question.Minimum wages are already fixed as a Standard in our Republic.That wasn't my question. Do YOU want the government to set wages. All wages. After all wouldn't that be for the public welfare of all?Minimum wages are already fixed as a Standard in our Republic. Anything more than just right wing fantasy?Do you want government to set wages?
Anything more than that is just right wing fantasy?
Getting back to your social contract for the general welfare of the people argument, if that can only be accomplished for all people by the government setting prices for everything, is that what we should do?We already have the, before and after, metrics from last generation.It does to me. The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not what they can and should do for their self.Regulating prices is a function delegated to our federal Congress. Subsidies for agriculture and intellectual property don't seem to be bad.How about prices? Should the government regulate prices to promote the general welfare of the people to fulfill the social contract?Only if we have real times of war and not fake times of war and therefore, optional times of war as indicated by the necessity of real times of war tax rates.Would you like the government to regulate profits as part of the social contract for the general welfare of the people?
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
In 1870, almost 50 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture.[16] As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States
The command economics required to get us there, has not lead to empty shelves.
Private charity can never solve official poverty. Only public charity can do that.
Why is that the concern of the government? And how can they accomplish that without regulating wages, prices and profits?Income redistribution is what it means. Pareto Optimality should be the goal.The issue is what that means. That's what we are discussing now. Should the government redistribute wealth to promote the general welfare of the people?Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Any more diversions?No. it goes to your argument of public welfare. I think we both know your answer too. Beliefs not worth saying are beliefs not worth having, comrade.begging the question is just fallacy.That wasn't my question. Do YOU want the government to set wages. All wages. After all wouldn't that be for the public welfare of all?
Minimum wages are already fixed as a Standard in our Republic. Anything more than just right wing fantasy?
We have a mixed market economy. No one is claiming we don't have our First World standard of living, due to our social safety nets.And if that does not provide for the general welfare of all people, should the government step in and assume control?So the government should provide jobs for everyone. Got it. How many cars should the government provide?.
Should the government redistribute wealth to promote the general welfare of the people?
managing a sound economy is the gov'ts obligation to the public, all economic modelling to be successful must achieve full employment.
The private sector is supposed to provide jobs for their capital gains preference.
dear, only the true socialism of outright, communism, will do during real times of war.So you believe that during times of war it would be necessary for the government to establish wages? You do realize that in those times labor shortages would be the issue, right?Only if we need the surety of socialism to bailout capitalism, like during real and not fake, times of war.You still didn't answer that question.Minimum wages are already fixed as a Standard in our Republic.That wasn't my question. Do YOU want the government to set wages. All wages. After all wouldn't that be for the public welfare of all?Minimum wages are already fixed as a Standard in our Republic. Anything more than just right wing fantasy?
Anything more than that is just right wing fantasy?
It is in our social Contract to promote the general welfare.Why is that the concern of the government? And how can they accomplish that without regulating wages, prices and profits?Income redistribution is what it means. Pareto Optimality should be the goal.The issue is what that means. That's what we are discussing now. Should the government redistribute wealth to promote the general welfare of the people?Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Any more diversions?No. it goes to your argument of public welfare. I think we both know your answer too. Beliefs not worth saying are beliefs not worth having, comrade.begging the question is just fallacy.
Minimum wages are already fixed as a Standard in our Republic. Anything more than just right wing fantasy?
you are begging the question and special pleading your straw man scenario.Getting back to your social contract for the general welfare of the people argument, if that can only be accomplished for all people by the government setting prices for everything, is that what we should do?We already have the, before and after, metrics from last generation.It does to me. The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not what they can and should do for their self.Regulating prices is a function delegated to our federal Congress. Subsidies for agriculture and intellectual property don't seem to be bad.How about prices? Should the government regulate prices to promote the general welfare of the people to fulfill the social contract?Only if we have real times of war and not fake times of war and therefore, optional times of war as indicated by the necessity of real times of war tax rates.
In 1870, almost 50 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture.[16] As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States
The command economics required to get us there, has not lead to empty shelves.
Private charity can never solve official poverty. Only public charity can do that.
I hope you don't mind if I disagree. Why are you crawfishing from your general welfare argument?dear, only the true socialism of outright, communism, will do during real times of war.So you believe that during times of war it would be necessary for the government to establish wages? You do realize that in those times labor shortages would be the issue, right?Only if we need the surety of socialism to bailout capitalism, like during real and not fake, times of war.You still didn't answer that question.Minimum wages are already fixed as a Standard in our Republic.That wasn't my question. Do YOU want the government to set wages. All wages. After all wouldn't that be for the public welfare of all?
Anything more than that is just right wing fantasy?
Was the Sheriff, just stealing from the poor to give to the rich, and getting paid a crony capital wage for it?Yes, promoting and providing for the general welfare is in our social Contract and federal Constitution.are you on the right, or just engaging in satire?Morals? What morals?
it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.
Is it moral to force someone to give up their wealth to help another someone else deems needs the help?
Was Robin Hood just in stealing from the rich and giving it to the poor?
We aren't discussing that. We are discussing your concept of a social contract for the general welfare of the people and what that means. Should the government guarantee employment and wages to provide for the general welfare of all the people?We have a mixed market economy. No one is claiming we don't have our First World standard of living, due to our social safety nets.And if that does not provide for the general welfare of all people, should the government step in and assume control?So the government should provide jobs for everyone. Got it. How many cars should the government provide?.
Should the government redistribute wealth to promote the general welfare of the people?
managing a sound economy is the gov'ts obligation to the public, all economic modelling to be successful must achieve full employment.
The private sector is supposed to provide jobs for their capital gains preference.
No. I am leading you to the logical conclusion of your social contract for the general welfare of the people argument.you are begging the question and special pleading your straw man scenario.Getting back to your social contract for the general welfare of the people argument, if that can only be accomplished for all people by the government setting prices for everything, is that what we should do?We already have the, before and after, metrics from last generation.It does to me. The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not what they can and should do for their self.Regulating prices is a function delegated to our federal Congress. Subsidies for agriculture and intellectual property don't seem to be bad.How about prices? Should the government regulate prices to promote the general welfare of the people to fulfill the social contract?
In 1870, almost 50 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture.[16] As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States
The command economics required to get us there, has not lead to empty shelves.
Private charity can never solve official poverty. Only public charity can do that.
I believe we should merely Use capitalism for all of its worth, as that form of social, "goodwill toward men".
That sounds like a ringing endorsement of communism.It is in our social Contract to promote the general welfare.Why is that the concern of the government? And how can they accomplish that without regulating wages, prices and profits?Income redistribution is what it means. Pareto Optimality should be the goal.The issue is what that means. That's what we are discussing now. Should the government redistribute wealth to promote the general welfare of the people?Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Any more diversions?No. it goes to your argument of public welfare. I think we both know your answer too. Beliefs not worth saying are beliefs not worth having, comrade.
In my opinion. all public policies should be Pareto Optimal.
I hope you don't mind if I disagree. Why are you crawfishing from your general welfare argument?dear, only the true socialism of outright, communism, will do during real times of war.So you believe that during times of war it would be necessary for the government to establish wages? You do realize that in those times labor shortages would be the issue, right?Only if we need the surety of socialism to bailout capitalism, like during real and not fake, times of war.You still didn't answer that question.Minimum wages are already fixed as a Standard in our Republic.
Anything more than that is just right wing fantasy?
from a public policy, perspective.Was the Sheriff, just stealing from the poor to give to the rich, and getting paid a crony capital wage for it?Yes, promoting and providing for the general welfare is in our social Contract and federal Constitution.are you on the right, or just engaging in satire?
it is about morals and bearing True Witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of social morals, "for free" or on a not for profit basis.
Is it moral to force someone to give up their wealth to help another someone else deems needs the help?
Was Robin Hood just in stealing from the rich and giving it to the poor?
What does it matter?
We aren't discussing that. We are discussing your concept of a social contract for the general welfare of the people and what that means. Should the government guarantee employment and wages to provide for the general welfare of all the people?We have a mixed market economy. No one is claiming we don't have our First World standard of living, due to our social safety nets.And if that does not provide for the general welfare of all people, should the government step in and assume control?So the government should provide jobs for everyone. Got it. How many cars should the government provide?.
managing a sound economy is the gov'ts obligation to the public, all economic modelling to be successful must achieve full employment.
The private sector is supposed to provide jobs for their capital gains preference.
No. I am leading you to the logical conclusion of your social contract for the general welfare of the people argument.you are begging the question and special pleading your straw man scenario.Getting back to your social contract for the general welfare of the people argument, if that can only be accomplished for all people by the government setting prices for everything, is that what we should do?We already have the, before and after, metrics from last generation.It does to me. The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not what they can and should do for their self.Regulating prices is a function delegated to our federal Congress. Subsidies for agriculture and intellectual property don't seem to be bad.
In 1870, almost 50 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture.[16] As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States
The command economics required to get us there, has not lead to empty shelves.
Private charity can never solve official poverty. Only public charity can do that.
I believe we should merely Use capitalism for all of its worth, as that form of social, "goodwill toward men".
we are not that moral. socialism requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.That sounds like a ringing endorsement of communism.It is in our social Contract to promote the general welfare.Why is that the concern of the government? And how can they accomplish that without regulating wages, prices and profits?Income redistribution is what it means. Pareto Optimality should be the goal.The issue is what that means. That's what we are discussing now. Should the government redistribute wealth to promote the general welfare of the people?Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Any more diversions?
In my opinion. all public policies should be Pareto Optimal.
An argument is not needed when history proves my point.I hope you don't mind if I disagree. Why are you crawfishing from your general welfare argument?dear, only the true socialism of outright, communism, will do during real times of war.So you believe that during times of war it would be necessary for the government to establish wages? You do realize that in those times labor shortages would be the issue, right?Only if we need the surety of socialism to bailout capitalism, like during real and not fake, times of war.You still didn't answer that question.
You are welcome to disagree. But, i can disagree with you, in that same manner.
Why not provide an argument for your disagreement?
